Will energy bill shine anew in next Congress?

WASHINGTON – It was one of the best-liked bills of the 113th Congress: a bipartisan proposal to boost energy efficiency, supported by business and environmental groups alike.

It didn’t have a whiff of controversy or contention. And yet it was stalled, stymied, and stopped at every turn.

Its chief sponsor, Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, says the bill’s fate will improve come January, when the 114th Congress convenes and the new Republican majority takes over the Senate. The implications could be significant, particularly in Ohio, where manufacturers and consumers stand to benefit — or lose out — depending on the outcome.

“Ohio will benefit directly,” Portman said before the Senate first took up the legislation last year, noting that it is designed to cut energy consumption by manufacturers and other industrial businesses that form the backbone of the Buckeye State’s economy.

The bill — co-authored by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat — would tighten model building codes, encouraging more energy-efficient elements in the construction of new homes and commercial buildings.

An early version of the legislation also included a new energy financing program, with grants to states to promote private-sector investment in energy-saving upgrades and renovations.

It’s a narrow measure, but local clean-energy activists say it could make a big difference.

For example, it would boost the Greater Cincinnati Energy Alliance, a nonprofit organization that helps local businesses and homeowners find financing for a gamut of energy-saving tools, whether it’s installing better heating systems, adding solar panels or improving insulation.

Andy Holzhauser, founder and CEO of the alliance, said such efforts need public capital to help leverage private investment — and the Portman bill would deliver that.

“Because a lot of these clean energy financing programs are newer, you need some risk absorption by the public sector,” Holzhauser said.

He said it’s been “stunning” to watch the bill’s start-stop life in Congress, gaining momentum one minute and dead in its tracks the next.

“It runs into a lot of these stumbling blocks that have nothing to do with the integrity of the bill,” he said.

The legislation has been gummed up by unrelated disputes over health care reform, the Keystone XL pipeline — even prostitution allegations.

When it arrived on the Senate floor last fall, it had the backing of about 260 groups that run the political gamut — from the pro-business U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group.

“This bill is pretty much the platonic ideal for consensus legislation,” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said as debate opened.

Then one Republican, Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, tried to attach an amendment that undermined a provision of the health care reform law. Democrats balked. And when Vitter refused to back down, Democrats reportedly drafted legislation to deny lawmakers their health care premium subsidy if there was “probable cause” to believe they solicited prostitutes.

That was a political jab at Vitter, whose named appeared on a prostitution service’s client list during the so-called D.C. Madam scandal in 2007. Vitter’s response? He called Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid “an old-time Vegas mafia thug” and filed an ethics complaint charging Democrats with “attempted bribery.”

So much for energy-efficiency.

Even a bare-bones version of the bill — with the state grant program and other elements stripped out — was blocked earlier this month, when Portman tried to push it through before the 113th Congress ended.

Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, prevented a vote on the measure, saying he was doing so at the behest of another senator, whom he declined to name, according to an account in Congressional Quarterly.

Portman said next year will be different, and he already has a strategy for getting it on the Senate’s docket as soon as Congress convenes in January.

GOP leaders have said that the first order of business will be legislation to authorize construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Portman hopes to offer the energy-efficiency bill as an amendment to the Keystone bill.

Portman’s spokeswoman, Caitlin Conant, said the energy-efficiency legislation was stymied in the past Congress “because of process and a Democratic majority unwilling to allow members to take tough votes” on amendments.

“Now that the Senate will begin voting on amendments again under Republican leadership, prospects next Congress are good,” Conant said.

The main sponsor of the Keystone bill, Sen. John Hoeven, R-North Dakota, has said he is open to adding the energy-efficiency bill to his proposal.

But some proponents fear that could tangle the efficiency bill in controversy all over again.

Environmental groups staunchly oppose the pipeline, saying it will exacerbate carbon pollution. And they say that, if the efficiency bill is attached to Keystone, they will push hard to kill the package.

Franz Matzner, associate director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the Shaheen-Portman bill would do modest good, whereas the Keystone bill would cause sweeping harm.

“It’s laughable that we’re even talking about them in the same breath,” he said.

Matzner said one of the best elements of the energy-efficiency bill was that it was broadly bipartisan and crafted with input from a wide variety of stakeholders, with the hope that it would lead to bigger policy changes.

“If people are serious about this bill, they should move it as a stand-alone proposal and everyone should vote yes and move on,” he said.

But if it’s attached to Keystone or other measures that undermine current environmental laws, Matzner said, “it will become victim to the overall charade that has killed it before.”